Re: a.s.r manpages
On May 28, 12:55pm, Joey Hess wrote:
> Buddha Buck:
> > Personally, I question placing them in the main distribution at all
> > (including non-free and contrib). I have nothing wrong with the
> > contents (if available, it would be installed on my system rather
> > quickly), but rather the unwanted publicity it could cause.
> I packaged up some of the ASR man pages as a red hat package back 9 or 10
> months ago when I was using red hat, and uploaded it to ftp.dehat.com. This
> was before dead chickens appeared on ASR. :-) I don't think that package
> generated unwanted publicity, in fact, I never heard from anyone who ever
> installed it.
I think so too... But will _try_ to ask people at a.s.r their opinion.
> Look at it this way: I don't think any of the man pages mention ASR at all.
> So the only person who is going to connect ASR with the package is someone
> who looks at the package description. Who's most likly to do that? The
> sysadmin who installs it . Seems appropriate...
> Oh, to the packager: be sure to include the c(1) manpage that appeared on
> ASR yesterday.
Probably in release 1.1-1 or something :^)
I'd like to see n(1) and k(5) first, so this part would be complete :^)
>  Or at least a user clueful enough to know about dpkg -s 
>  Sorry about  and . ASR-mode, you know..
> see shy jo
(___) | Pawel Wiecek ------------- <firstname.lastname@example.org> |
< o o > | http://www.ists.pwr.wroc.pl/~coven/ |
\ ^ / | finger email@example.com for PGP key |
(") | * * * To err is human, to moo bovine * * * |
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .